Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aspa-mcp

aspa-mcp

by octos-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Testar avisos

aspa_test_notifications

Sends a test notification to all configured channels and reports which ones succeeded along with any errors, so you can verify notification delivery.

Instructions

Send a test notification to every configured channel (Ubuntu desktop, Slack, ntfy) and report which channels worked and the errors.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "aspa_test_notifications"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.8.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true; the description adds the crucial context that a message is actually dispatched to every configured channel at once and that per-channel success and errors are reported. It stops short of stating prerequisites (login, channel configuration) or rate limits, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and the channel scope before the reporting behavior. Every clause carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema present, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value and does so ('report which channels worked and the errors'). Combined with the zero-parameter schema, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies; the empty schema is consistent with the description's 'every configured channel' broadcast model.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Send a test notification'), the exact scope ('every configured channel'), enumerates the concrete channels (Ubuntu desktop, Slack, ntfy), and says what is returned. This clearly separates it from sibling senders like aspa_send_message or aspa_send_template, which target real recipients rather than diagnostics.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The diagnostic intent ('test') implies when to use it — verifying notification wiring — but there are no explicit when/when-not statements and no named alternatives among the many aspa_send_* siblings. Usage is inferred rather than guided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools